Outdated political thuggery embarrasses Malaysia

Peter Hartcher

Dumb autocrats use the army, goon squads and guns to repress the opposition. Smart autocrats use the law courts to do it. Indonesia's Soeharto was a dumb autocrat. Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad were smart autocrats.

The Lee-Mahathir model keeps the outward facade of a functioning democracy, with elections, a parliament and supposedly independent courts. Behind it, the systems are gutted to guarantee the ruling party remains ruling.

In Singapore, where Lee's People's Action Party has been in power for 50 continuous years, the government simply sues opposition politicians for defamation. A tame court hands down ruinous damages, opponents end up in bankruptcy, jail or exile.

When a meddlesome foreigner, the deputy director for Asia of Human Rights Watch, Phil Robertson, said last month that ''Singapore is the textbook example of a politically repressive state'', the government just shrugged and said: ''Singapore is a democratic state with a clean and transparent government.''

Advertisement

The army is in its barracks and there are no goon squads smashing through people's front doors at 3am. It's all legit, see? The foreign investors and governments play along. So what if the ruling party holds 98 per cent of the seats in parliament? It has an elected parliament, and surely that's good enough.

Lee quit the prime ministership in 1990 and now holds a personalised cabinet post of Minister Mentor. But his system lives on. His handpicked successors as prime minister, Goh Chok Tong, and now Lee's son, Lee Hsien Loong, have been every bit as smart as the old man himself in preserving the appearance of legitimacy.

In Malaysia, Mahathir was never as subtle or as smooth as Lee. But Mahathir was still a smart autocrat who kept control through his puppetry of the judicial system. The pivotal moment was in 1988 when Mahathir complained that the courts were ''too independent''.

He purged the chief judicial officer, the Lord President, and suspended the five chief justices of the Supreme Court. The court system has never given any further trouble to the Barisan Nasional, or National Front, since. Together with its predecessor, the BN has ruled Malaysia continuously for 54 years.

It's infinitely smarter to use legal instruments to purge judges than to use guns against protesters. A judicial massacre makes lousy TV. You won't see one live on CNN. So it remains hidden from international view. Yet it can be every bit as repressive. So when Mahathir faced a power struggle in 1998 with his deputy prime minister and heir apparent, the charismatic Anwar Ibrahim, he naturally turned to the courts to purge his younger rival.

In a blatantly political fix-up, he had Anwar arrested and charged with sodomy, a shocking crime in a predominantly conservative Muslim country. Even today it carries a maximum penalty of 20 years' jail. The police Special Branch concocted evidence and coerced witnesses. Anwar emerged from his police cell to appear in court with a bruised face, inflicted, it was later learnt, when the chief of police beat him.

The verdict was never in question. The courts convicted Anwar of sodomising his aide and speechwriter, Munawar Anees. The former deputy PM spent six years in jail. Munawar, now living in the US, has since said he was coerced into giving evidence against Anwar. ''My detention by the Malaysian Special Branch taught me how it feels to be forcibly separated from one's wife and children,'' Munawar wrote in the Wall Street Journal last month.

''How it feels to be searched and seized, disallowed to make phone calls, handcuffed, blindfolded, stripped naked, endlessly interrogated, humiliated, drugged, deprived of sleep, physically abused. What it's like to be threatened, blackmailed, hectored by police lawyers, brutalised to make a totally false confession.''

With Malaysia under tremendous international pressure from Anwar's admirers, including America's Al Gore and Britain's Gordon Brown, and with Mahathir retiring from the prime ministership in 2003, a review court overturned the sodomy sentence. Anwar was released in 2004.

He was allowed to return to politics in 2008 to lead the opposition to the BN. He committed the crime of doing so with some success. In March 2008, under challenge from Anwar, the BN won a national election, but was shocked to lose its prized majority of two-third of the seats in parliament.

The new BN Prime Minister, Najib Razak, reacted exactly as Mahathir had to a challenge from Anwar. Four months after the ruling party's election setback, Anwar was once again charged with sodomy. Once again, it's a blatant political case. The newspaper The Star called the case ''Sodomy II''.

Why is Anwar such a threat?

''At the moment,'' says Carl Thayer, an expert at the University of NSW, ''there is no other leader who can hold together the opposition coalition of an Islamic party with a Chinese party, who is capable of being prime minister, and who has experience and international recognition that Anwar has.''

The case is a joke. It exposes the Najib government as desperate and underhanded. It makes Malaysia a subject of international ridicule. While under Mahathir this form of legal manipulation might have been smart autocracy, in today's world it just looks like Malaysia is playing around with its national future.

Peter Hartcher is the Sydney Morning Herald's international editor.

22 comments

I'm a Malaysian and I can vouch that the Police force and Judiciary are part of the government machinery. They are not independent like it is here in Australia. Judges who follow the government's instructions on handing out judgements enjoy meteoric rise and those who don't are either sacked or are ignored when it comes to promotion. Mahathir's son and Najib's brother are billionairs through systemic corruption. Dissent is rewarded with detention for 2 years without trial. We have to thank our lucky stars that we live in a great democracy like Australia.

Commenter

Eddie

Location

Melbourne

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 6:57AM

Prima facie you can ague "Singapore is the textbook example of a politically repressive state". But it developed from a third world kampong (village) state to a first world country in just 40 years. In Australia and elsewhere in the West, we like to sit and pontificate about short term symptoms and freedoms rather than formulating and sticking to a sustainable strategy. Singapore on the other hand, bereft of the natural resources we enjoy, appear to have developed this much more successfully. People are gainfully employed and mostly happy with their lot. Sure they don't have Medicare, free pink batts in the ceiling etc etc but the government is providing an environment for individuals and families to live reasonably well and in relative predictability. Why should the majority worry about issues they have no control of? The government is now working on the next 50 years of Singapore (not how to win the next election). When will we realise this? When a big part of our resources are out of our control and our grandkids are borrowing even more from the East to survive?

Commenter

East & West

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 8:24AM

I'm a Malaysian & have to leave the country because there is no such thing as democracy & freedom of speech in Malaysia. The country is so corrupt from every level & very racist in its national policies. People in Australia should consider themselves fortunate to live in a lucky, democratic, lawful & equal opportunity country.

Commenter

SR

Location

NSW

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 8:27AM

While I agree that the Malaysian judicial system is just an arm of the governement it's worth reflecting that it was Anwar (while he was part of the government) who didn't mind the use of these tactics.

Maybe he sees the irony too.

Commenter

stuart

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 8:51AM

East & West, it's fantastic that the Singaporean government has Singapore's best interest in mind, but let me ask you, in the abscence of true freedom - what would happen if a regime like that of Pol Pot or Kim Il Jong came along in Signapore?

In the US, without free elections, imagine George W. Bush staying in power for 50 years. Now there's a thought.

The article did not make comparisons between East and West and nor did it claim the western system was without flaws.

"but the government is providing an environment for individuals and families to live reasonably well and in relative predictability." This is all well and good for a population who is happy to be told how to live their life - but some of us would rather have a choice and remind the government what we want in changing times and circumstances through free elections.

Commenter

HN

Location

Sydney

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 10:09AM

The irony of this is that this was the form of government that Malaysia inherited from the British, to make sure the communists and Indonesians were defeated.

Naturally they would keep these emergency powers.

Commenter

R T Fishall

Location

Katoomba

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 10:24AM

East & West

- this is called happy face fascism isn't it?

it must be a lovely county to be gay in - 2 years in jail for a private act between two men...nice.

the government just loves its death penalty too

questioning just how come Lee Kuan Yew's family got so rich through some unorthodox means? welcome to jail!

want to meet up with more than 5 people? government permit required! will it be granted? not if you are in The Singapore Democratic Party.

want to speak in public? permit required!

The Law Society of Singapore - can it comment on Sinaporean legislation? what do you think?

keep you head down and your mouth shut....what a way to have to live.

Commenter

Macca

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 10:38AM

If the people of Singapore were asked if they would like to have President Lee resurrected and made president for another fifty years, I wonder what their answer would be. Upon careful examination, I was saddened to have learned that the democratic process is nothing more than manipulated mob control.

Commenter

The Stump

Location

Australia

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 10:43AM

I am neither Malaysian, nor Singaporean nor Chinese or Thai or Indian. However, it seems like that in the West, any sort of political system (no matter how functioning) is a bad thing for countries that are too independent and does not care about the West's help. Singapore, Taiwan and Malaysia are three prime examples. China is another example - even after opening their economy to the West, it still is bad because of its politics. Why can't they just sell the whole country to us?

Take the example of Pakistan though. And Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan and Oman and Yemen and may be even Saudi. All these countries are excellent examples of democracies and flourishing, thriving, lively examples of people's power and democracy. At least that is the impression one gets when one follows the Western media and politicans and media commentators.

But wait. Look at some of the Western countries too. Wire tapping of citizens? Surely, that is permissible - we have terrorists lurking behind the bedroom door. Inherent racism towards ethnic minorities and immigrants? Well, that happens. Take them as pun and fun. How about war crimes in other countries that and locking up of people and children in detention centres indefinitely? Huh? What's that??

Commenter

SH

Location

Sydney

Date and time

February 23, 2010, 11:06AM

East & West, You seem to be of the opinion that prosperity and personal freedom are mutually exclusive, and as long as a population continues to prosper, then corruption and nepotism are of little importance. I imagine this situation is acceptable for as long as the cancer of corruption steers a path around yourself and your family?

It's easy to overlook the absence of natural justice when corruption destroys "other" people, and we have a nice new television in our lounge rooms. But what if your interests and the interests of a corrupt official were to intersect? Who would you go to for assistance? Or would the destruction of your lifestyle be a fair price to pay for the greater good?